IF you GET or GOT a BE, please understand: there may not have been much you could have done about it.
The BNY instructions for “differentiating performance” actually address the manager’s dilemma when they have all good workers. They are to determine their top performers, then compare the rest to find the one that is least best.
If a manager still cannot distinguish among their employees’ fine performances, the next level manager is sure to provide a name, since he/she is under even more pressure to deliver failures. After all, upper management has already chosen their overachievers, so they require failures to balance the curve.
Notice that I say REQUIRES. I have no problem working with an underachiever to improve performance, but in this case we don’t have a chance. No advance warning, no time to correct, and maybe nothing to correct after all. BNY’s QUOTA FOR FAILURE must be met.
I have no idea if the directors that require the performance distribution realize how it plays out when implemented. But its a BAD POLICY and will NOT produce success. It produces resentment and depresses morale and performance all around, especially because the BE shares their frustration and the teammates are protective and distressed.
So if any director is reading this, now you know. Unless you actually want what is happening, you can fix this by eliminating the QUOTA. Trust your managers. We know that an under-performer is a drag on the team an we are eager to get them to improve. That’s what we are here for.
And if we say they are all great (like MY team) trust that too!